The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1887-09-14
HAWTH0RNE'S PLAGIARISM
OF HAWTHORNE AND VIM
DIcATIoN OF BENET.

nond, and RepubIishcd in His
Present Home, AtInntu.-.It Won,
do to 20 Back OH the Printer and
Rep0rter-.The Unfortunate Quota
ton Marks.
The following editorial of the Richmond
State VIC copy from the atlanta ConstitutiOn
Rev. DIR. Hawthorne was for several years in
charge OF church in Richmond, Va, before
he was called to Atlanta. In both cities he
has occupied very high position as preach
er and as leader In the prohibition move
ment; and he has had the misfortune, II
seems, to be accused Of plagiarism before.
From the Richmond State.
The Rev. J. B. Hawthorne has no claims
whatsoever upon the courtesy OF the State;
but as this paper has already published the
Hon. w. G. Benet's complete exposure Of DR..
Hawthorne's glaring. plagiarism, II gives
space for the sake of fair play, as we'll rs for
the pubic's better understanding of this ques.
tiOn, to DIR. Hawthorne letter In the Dispatch
of yesterday. Asis seen, the letter opens with
DR.. Hawthorne's characteristic abuse. 1t Is q
very cheap sort of Misrepresentation that
speaks OF those who have aided in the detcc.
tion and exposure of Or. Hnwthornes ltera-
ry dishonesty rs "paid slandererS IN the ser.
vice Of the doggery keepers" For 1t Is very
probable that ho man whose hand has helped
to unmask this loud declaimer Of other mems
ideas has ever received or will ever receive for
his services any compensation save the know.
ledge that he has done his duty to deceived
public. But this is not the first time that this
intolorant speaker and writer has attributed
mercenary motives to those who have honest
Iy differed with him as to the means he advo-
Gated for promoting temperance-tempcronc
professcdly the object Of his speeches and
writings, but leaving so little impress on his
spoken or written LANGUAGE. That vigorous
proof that those engaged in 1t are paid for
their help by the liquor dealers Is just rs rea.
sonable as TO say that those who favo: prohi-
bition are the secret agents of the dealers In
limcade and soda-water.
There Is q fact that must be fully taken in
mind In the beginning and borne constantly
in mind In the whole consideration OF this
ouestiou-that not once. but on several differ
ent occasions, has DR.. Hawthorne been accus.
cd of plagiarism. Whilst other men are not
even SUSPECTED he is accused again and again
Is IL possible that cruel fate has selected DIR.
Hawthorne as the particular object OF It's
peculiar victim Of circumstances? In short.
is 1t only accden tial that the lishtningOf crit
icism strikes his speeches so often, or r. 1t the
foreign metal In them that inevitably at.
tracts the fatal fluid /?
First DR.. Hawthorne abuses the Atlanta
correspondent of the Dispatch and In his de.
fense against numerous charges of plagiarism
cites single case In which he was accused
and hnppened-according to the opinion OF
those whom he chose as his judges-to he de-
carcd not guilty. The remainder Of his de.
fense is his own unsupported statements
supported by testimony, unsupported by cir.
cumstance. It need only be said In reply to
them all that If he be guilty of plagiarism, ms
Mr.. Bcnet has clearly shown he Is guilty, IL
will not be difficult to determine the value OF
any statement he may make In his own be.
half The man who pliers other mems ideas
and palms them Off as his own Will hardly be
found exhibiting any delicate scrupulonsness
90 mil n IN m
Or. Hawthorne says that when accused Of
"steallng" his speech he referred the matter to
DR.. Strong eimself and DIR. Strong replied by
thanking him for stealing his words. Cen
matter referred? Mr.. Benets exposure was
his second letter, and If DIR. Hawthorne laid
his case before DR.. Strong rs soon as ne was
accused in MIR. Benet's first letter, then, as
between the publication OF Mr.. BenetS first
letter and the publication of his second letter,
DR.. Haw thornc had no opportunity, even II
he had wished 1t, to send to DR.. Strong Mt that
time a copy OF the augusta Chronicle contain.
Ing that second letter with It's startling and
convincing parallel columns, in which ap-
pearcd side by side quotations from Our
they aoe Byfn By SB Snfonf
Hawthorne had submitted copy or Benet's
second letter to DR.. Strong. and the author OF
"Our Country" after reading 1t, had thanked
DR.. Hawthorne for "stenllng" ms words, then
as the only man in the world SO generous, so
humble, so forgiving as 10 thank another Tor
taking away his ideas, and after garblinS his
language: using the ideas ,a as ms own; no. oor
not successfully defend any given point the
less lie says about IL the better. 1t Is signih-
cant that, although Dr. Hawthorne claims to
have spattered his manuscript with quotation
marks, he has not yet explained why II was
that he changed the wording Of the quota
tions! Surely this Is novel practice-using
quotation marks and yet changing the quota
tions within them. TO quote from an author
without giving him due credit Is the same
thing us borrowing mans property without
his consent; to change the quotation, besides,
i, the same Thing as hiding or trying to alter
the OF tne Properly d "nSh trS
cepl the property OF another Is not more
worthy of condemnation when the property
Is material property than when IL Is lnteiiec-
Of this unwarruntabe tampering with an
other mans written language? Was itintend-
ed that the language should be improved up
on and that We; credit should he given to the
author, whose name was mysteriously with
held by DR.. Hawthorne for some occult rea-
son that he does not divulge, but promises TO
divulge hereafter? Surely DR.. hawthorne
was not ashamed "to acknowledge his indebt-
edness'' to DR.. Strong because the mention Of
Dr.. Strong's name would detract from the. ef:
fect!veness of his quoted language; and II
this be true, was 1t due to any Imagined un.
popularity of pr. Strong? or was 1t due o 10
speech appear rs original at DR.. Strong's ex-
penseo Which seems the more probable?
DR.. Hawthorne says that the Chronicle only
published that part of his speech which was
In writing, that in this he used quotation
cle's report except "in two or three Trivial IN.
Stances Let us refer to Mr.. Benet's letter OF
exposure, which The State repu6l!shed rom
the augusta Chronicle on SATURDAY, AuShS, nSSINn
marks were arbitrarily omitted by the com.
positorS on the Chronicle isan excuse at when
those familiar with the discipline ol q COM
posing room will obviously shake their heads.
aGo back on" the printer and the reported Is
n device that has been worn tnreaGohre oy
public speakers who Imagine that thelr great,
er regulations will give their stntaments OF
those who are less we'll known ana possess
less influence; IL Is device that for small
cunning and petty fear OF responsibility for
ones own words cannot be surpassed. anu II
is quickly recognized ana heaftily aeSp'seo
in every newspaper o1Dce. -
Even granting that DR.. Hawthorne used
some quotation marks IN his manuscript why
did he wish to deprive DIR. Strong or due cred
n for his labor? But what Is fnr more impor-
iant-what is far more significant-why did
he change the wording Of these quotations.
Was ever an attempt to produce that dis.
similarity which would bespeak originality
SO wcak2 Was ever, plagiarism more flag
rant. more objectionable, more worthy OF the
seycrcSt condemnation and the most right
eous contempt? If there be any who; IN Inc Inc
There wus Innocence where gui II is so plain,
then they arc either too blinu ana sodden
with prejudice to be able to tell right rom
wrong, or, prrferrlng to look upon what Is
G,isc rather than upon what Is true, they
would vainly seek to whiten thls sepulchre.
"A Gentleman and Scholar"